ENDLESS RESURRECTION: ART AND RITUAL IN THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC ARIELA STEIF THIS HONORS THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE HISTORY OF ART IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A B.A. WITH HONORS IN THE SUBJECT OF THE HISTORY OF ART UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 5 APRIL 2010 ADVISOR: PROFESSOR MARGARET COOL ROOT SECOND READER: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR KEVIN CARR
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ENDLESS RESURRECTION: ART AND RITUAL IN THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC
ARIELA STEIF
THIS HONORS THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE HISTORY OF ART
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A B.A. WITH HONORS IN THE SUBJECT OF
THE HISTORY OF ART
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
5 APRIL 2010
ADVISOR: PROFESSOR MARGARET COOL ROOT SECOND READER: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR KEVIN CARR
i
Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii
Introduction 1
Part I: A Historiography of Interpretations 6
Part II: Shamanic Interpretations 15
Part III: Art and Ritual: A Biobehavioral Perspective 30
Part IV: Ritual, Religiosity, and the Sacred-Profane Dichotomy 45
Concluding Thoughts 53
Appendix A: Images 55
Appendix B: Major Franco-Cantabrian Upper Paleolithic Caves 73
Bibliography 75
Cover Image: Chauvet, Panel of the Horses, 32,000 – 29,000 years ago.
ii
Acknowledgments I would like to thank, first and foremost, my thesis advisor, Margaret Cool Root,
for her unfailing guidance and advice, and for being with me every step of the way – and
reading nearly every single draft. Her patient devotion and dedication to this project was
more invaluable than I can say here.
I would also like to thank John Speth for agreeing to be my unofficial secondary
Anthropology advisor. Our numerous fruitful discussions were instrumental in the
development of the direction of this thesis.
I am grateful to Howard Lay and Achim Timmerman for guiding me through the
thesis process, and to Kevin Carr for consenting to be my second reader.
Karen Johnson deserves special thanks for her suggestions and advice, as does
Bridget Gilman for her ongoing support and constructive critiques.
Lastly, my deepest gratitude to Dad and Michelle for their boundless love,
support, and encouragement that has sustained me throughout this long process.
1
Introduction
My thesis explores the driving forces that compelled the production of parietal art
in the Upper Paleolithic caves of the Franco-Cantabrian region of Europe. This period,
from about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, spans the last cycle of the Ice Age in this region.
The overarching question this paper addresses asks why Upper Paleolithic peoples
were compelled to produce art. The currently accepted interpretation of parietal art
contends that the majority of the cave images are manifestations of shamanic ritual
mediated through visionary experience in altered states of consciousness. Thus, to ask
why this art was made is to also ask why ritual was enacted. There is no single answer to
this double question. It is not even so straightforward as to say that there are multiple
answers. Rather there are many layers of answers. As each layer is peeled back, new
nuances and possibilities appear. This layering of issues and approaches responds to the
relationship between art and ritual, as well as the biobehavioral, social, and cognitive
causes behind these human behaviors in the context of the evolutionary environment.
Some of the social dynamics that come into play here include the interaction
between ritual, collective memory, action, and anxiety; the importance of control within
emotionally centered human behaviors; and the connections between ritual, group
solidarity, social complexity, and ecological stress. I will argue that these dynamics relate
to a tensional paradox of affect between social division and social cohesion. I will also
argue for the relevance of ritual in this context within modes of religiosity, rites of terror,
and the sacred-profane dichotomy.
My research, in its multifaceted and protean modus operandi, draws on multiple
fields of study beyond art history, including archaeology, ethnographical and biological
2
anthropology, paleontology, and cognitive and evolutionary psychology. In addition to
engaging this wide range of disciplines, I draw upon several earlier scholars of the history
of religion whose work has been somewhat sidelined in contemporary discourse
(particularly Jane Harrison and Mircea Eliade), in an attempt to revive and
recontextualize their contributions.
This thesis is concerned almost exclusively with parietal art: the non-mobile
works that include paintings, drawings, engravings, and reliefs on cave walls. Although
the research is limited to a relatively small geographical area, the Franco-Cantabrian
region contains 95 percent of all painted caves in the world, incorporating many
thousands of images.1 The physical and quantitative characterization of these thousands
of images is complicated. Some images of individual figures appear to represent discrete
phenomena. In other cases we see what are commonly referred to as ‘panels’: groups of
animals appearing in compositions that deliberately depict them together. The so-called
Panel of the Horses at Chauvet [Fig. 1] is a good example. Given the sheer number and
diversity of images that exist and the nature of questions being investigated, I have
chosen to explore the corpus as a whole rather than to focus on a small number of works
or on a single cave. Nonetheless, there are a few key sites that will be emphasized and
frequently cited as evidence: Lascaux, Chauvet, Altamira, Le Tuc D’Audoubert, Enlènes,
Les Trois Frères, Pech Merle, El Castillo, and Covalanas [see Appendix B].
Determining secure relative dates for the parietal images is difficult, complicated,
and often impossible. There were multiple interventions in the caves over periods of
several thousand years, forming a huge potential time span in which the works could
have originated. Even establishing the limits of this large and rough period is challenging. 1 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 37.
3
One method is carbon dating, which can be used to date passages incorporating charcoal
as a drawing medium. Even here, measurements usually have a margin of error of
hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Furthermore, carbon dating will only work for
material later than approximately 40,000-50,000 years ago. Additionally, it tends to
overestimate age – a tendency that increases as the age of the sample edges closer to this
threshold. Not only could the dates given for older paintings conceivably be wildly
inaccurate, but even our knowledge of when the Upper Paleolithic period began is
tentative.2 It is also worth noting that carbon dating does not yield the date that the
painting was made, but rather the year that the tree (or other organism) died, that became
the wood that was then fired into the charcoal, which ultimately made the painting.
Finally, many of the pigments used in the Upper Paleolithic are mineral-based, such as
manganese (blacks) and iron oxides (reds and yellows). These have no carbon
composition and thus cannot be dated by radiocarbon technique.
One strategy for dating the episodes of human intervention in decorated caves is
analysis of the associated archaeological record. Artifacts and other debris are often
found in the earth just below the images rendered on cave walls. As the detritus built up
over time it formed separate layers, known as ‘strata’, that represent successive periods of
human activity. The most recent layer accumulated above those beneath it. Often
artifacts and debris found within each stratum can be carbon-dated, yielding a rough
absolute date for a given layer of deposition and a relative chronology for all the material
discovered in the proximity of the cave’s parietal images. While crucial to the
understanding of many features of cave function (and thus the social context in which the
2 Lewis-Williams, 2002, 38.
4
parietal art was created and received over time), such analysis is of only limited use in
determining the dating of the application of decoration to cave walls.
Furthermore, many of the caves were not excavated systematically in any sense.
Some underwent more extensive exploration than others. Often caves were discovered
serendipitously and treated cavalierly by any scientific standard. Lascaux,3 to cite one
significant example, was famously found by four young boys who let an entire village of
children walk through the cave before any archaeologist was even aware of its existence.
Given the intermittent and haphazard manner in which many sites were examined,
stratigraphic analysis of the depositions in the cave interiors is unevenly available.
Remarkably, there is no master list or database of all archaeological evidence found in
the caves, including parietal art, portable artifacts of all sorts, fossils, and other
information-rich debris.
With this in mind, there is only so much information that we can glean from the
physical evidence of the parietal art and its environment. Once the archaeological
evidence has been collected, categorized, and analyzed, the question arises: how far can
we go in constructing interpretative narratives with regard to the art and its makers? In
prehistoric archaeology there is always a gap between evidence and interpretation, and
thus we must ask, at what point do the interpretations exceed the reasonable bounds of
the evidence? In this thesis I have tended to err on the side of caution, avoiding
interpretative leaps that I believe might go too far, and qualifying statements that may be
on the verge of over-assumption. This inclination, which seems to be prevalent in the
field today, reacts against a long tradition of over-assumptions regarding the Upper
Paleolithic era and its peoples. The prudence that currently pertains may compensate for 3 See Appendix B for information on the periods and locations of all caves cited in this thesis.
5
decades of supposition and misrepresentation. In recent years the field has slowly begun
to reassemble and re-examine evidence in innovative ways, producing new hypotheses to
explain the cave art while striving to construct an intellectually broad and objectively
sound platform of analysis.
6
Part I: A Historiography of Interpretations
Despite the relatively recent discovery of some of the major Upper Paleolithic
cave art of the Franco-Cantabrian region, the works have accumulated a rich history of
competing interpretations and hypotheses regarding the reasons for their creation and
possible social significance.4 Some examples of Upper Paleolithic parietal art had in fact
been found as early as the mid-seventeenth century; but the remote antiquity of the
artworks was not recognized.5 The first parietal art attributed to the Upper Paleolithic era
was at Altamira, found by Don Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola and his daughter Maria on
their land in 1879. Sautuola made the connection between the paintings on the ceiling
that Maria found and the Upper Paleolithic artifacts he had seen at a Paris exhibition. For
the remainder of his life he tirelessly argued that the paintings were as old as the portable
art. Unfortunately, the prehistorians of the day rejected such claims; Sautuola died
discredited and alone in his beliefs.6 Mainstream scholars did not credit the parietal art
with being authentically Upper Paleolithic until approximately 1902. The earliest
hypothesis on the meaning of cave art, called l’art pour l’art, ‘art for the sake of art,’ was
put forth as early as 1861 by the French archaeologist Édouard Lartet and the prehistorian
Édouard Piette. At that time, the interpretation was applied only to portable objects such
as figurines, which had begun to emerge in the 1830s and were readily credited as works
4 While the bulk of this thesis incorporates scholars from a wide range of disciplines, the basic historiography of Upper Paleolithic parietal art is routinely covered in most contemporary texts concerned with cave art. In this section I have chosen to draw largely from the analyses of two scholars, David Lewis-Williams (a specialist in South African rock art) and Jean Clottes (one of the foremost scholars of Upper Paleolithic Franco-Cantabrian art). Their comprehensive and contemporary approaches offer a wide lens through which to view the historiography, and their extensive work in this field has transformed it enormously. 5 The images were treated cavalierly because their significance was not even guessed at. People who stumbled upon the paintings often signed their own names barely a foot away from them. Lewis-Williams, 2002, 26. 6 Lewis-Williams, 2002, 31.
7
created in the Paleolithic era.7 Once the correct age of the parietal art was accepted, these
works were described in the context of the same ‘art for art’s sake’ hypothesis.
The proponents of this model asserted that the artwork was created for purely
aesthetic purposes of pleasurable viewing and as an expression of personal urges to make
images devoid of any symbolic meaning. They postulated further that since the work
lacked symbolic value, then its creators could not possibly have held any religious
beliefs.8 The authors of ‘art for art’s sake’ assumed that life was easy for the Upper
Paleolithic peoples: that food was plentiful, and that abundant free time encouraged art
production as a gratifying individual expression. This hypothesis was not popular for
very long. It fell out of favor by the beginning of the twentieth century, following a
period of harsh criticism. Besides its sweeping overgeneralization and
mischaracterization of the prehistoric environment and lifestyle, the interpretation failed
to account for the significant amount of art in the deepest parts of the caves – in areas that
were exceedingly difficult to access, and certainly were not spaces for casual visual
gratification. The people who made these works would not have gone to such
considerable lengths for so simplistic and superficial a purpose as personal pleasure.
Venturing into the dangerous, pitch-black, and labyrinth-like caves was not for the faint
of heart: considerable courage and conviction was required.
Another hypothesis, dominant in the discourse only briefly, is related to concepts
of totemism. This hypothesis was put forward largely by the French archaeologist
Salomon Reinach around 1903,9 in the aftermath of l’art pour l’art. Totemism, which has
been practiced by a number of societies throughout time, constitutes a special relationship
between a human group or clan, and an animal species. The relationship includes both
identification with and worship of the animal.10 The totemic interpretation quickly faded
for several reasons. Some of the animals in the cave paintings appear to be wounded;
others are shown pierced by objects that look like arrows, suggesting direct encounter
with weapon-wielding humans. Such imagery is incompatible with totemism, although
there are indeed historical examples of the killing of a totem animal as a form of
honorific practice. A more compelling argument against the totemic interpretation is the
great diversity of fauna represented in one cave or area; if the totem theory were correct,
we would expect to see caves devoted to the portrayal of a single animal species. The one
major exception to the widespread diversity of animal types depicted in individual caves
across the Franco-Cantabrian region is the cave at Rouffignac. Here, an exceedingly large
number of woolly mammoth depictions are found [Fig. 2]. Yet even at Rouffignac other
animals do appear.11 The multiple flaws in the totemic explanation made it increasingly
problematic, inviting the rise to supremacy of a rival interpretation – one that would rule
the field for nearly fifty years.
The sympathetic magic hypothesis emerged during the early twentieth century,
partly due to the influence of Salomon Reinach, who favored it over the totemic
hypothesis.12 Abbé Henri Breuil, one of the foremost Paleolithic scholars of the last
century, was also a fierce proponent of the sympathetic magic interpretation. At its most
basic, sympathetic magic is based on a fundamental relationship between image and
subject: to render an animal is to control it. ‘Killing’ the animal on the wall by depicting,
10 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 66. 11 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 42-44. 12 Lewis-Williams, 2002, 46.
9
for example, arrows in its flesh, is equivalent to killing the animal in real life.13 This
hypothesis found some support in ethnographic parallels: a belief that possession of an
image of a person or animal gives one power over that entity has been observed in a
number of cultures.
Sympathetic magic posits three separate orders: hunting, destruction, and fertility.
The goal of hunting magic is to ensure successful hunts. Evidence to support this theory
within Upper Paleolithic parietal art has focused on paintings of animals that appeared to
be wounded and the presence of marks that looked to be representations of weapons –
primarily arrows and traps. Some animals are incompletely drawn; proponents of the
sympathetic magic explanation believed that this might have been a deliberate strategy to
lessen the animal’s power. Destruction magic is built on the same premise and evidence
as hunting magic, but it is directed towards dangerous, predatory animals. Among
observable cultures, this category of magic is executed for protective purposes rather than
sustenance. Fertility magic, by contrast, is closely related to hunting magic: it is meant to
encourage or assist the procreation of animals that comprise the human diet.14
According to the sympathetic magic hypothesis, Upper Paleolithic parietal art
aided survival, and on that level it was practical and utilitarian. But, at the same time, its
practice was firmly anchored in magic, which would explain the location of some
paintings in the depths of the caves. The concept of ‘magic’ is akin to ritual in that it
involves action done to achieve some end beyond the action itself, or to influence events
that affect daily life. However, it may not be codified in a prescribed, repetitive form as
13 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 67-68. 14 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 69.
10
ritual usually is.15
The demise of the sympathetic magic interpretation was surprisingly slow given
the copious amount of evidence contradicting it. To begin with, only about 10% of all the
parietal art in the Franco-Cantabrian region depicts imagery of either weapon marks or
wounds. Scenes of copulation and pregnant female animals, which would substantiate the
fertility magic aspect of the theory, are rare, as are images of fauna such as reindeer, an
animal that constituted a major source of food for the Upper Paleolithic people. If one of
the primary reasons for sympathetic magic was to ensure a food supply, then we would
expect to see images of animals that were actually eaten. Finally, there was no
explanation for other features of cave representations such as hand stencils, the depictions
of humans, and the renderings of half-human, half-animal composite images called
therianthropes. Despite these shortcomings, this interpretation, for the most part, did not
fall out of favor until Henri Breuil’s death in 1961.16
In 1945, the German art historian Max Raphael published a book entitled
Prehistoric Cave Paintings, detailing his own understanding of the cave art. Although his
ideas were largely ignored at the time, he made crucial observations that have since
changed the face of the field. By and large his proposals cannot be either proven or
disproven, but historians of Paleolithic art today are re-examining his work in the context
of contemporary approaches and are finding new plausibility in what was once an
obscure text.
Despite its age, Raphael observed, the parietal art seems peculiarly modern to us.
He argued this apparent modernity was caused by what he referred to as the human’s
15 Nor, we should add, is magic carried out through divine intervention; it is action done entirely on a human level. 16 Lewis-Williams, 2002, 33.
11
“emancipation from the animal state.”17 The works were produced “in a unique historical
situation and are a great spiritual symbol: for they date from a period when man had just
emerged from a purely zoological existence, when instead of being dominated by
animals, he began to dominate them.”18
The paleolithic paintings remind us that our present subjection to forces other than nature is purely transitory; these works are a symbol of our future freedom. Today, mankind, amidst enormous sacrifices and suffering is, with imperfect awareness, striving for a future in the eyes of which all our history will sink to the level of ‘prehistory.’ Paleolithic man was carrying on a comparable struggle. Thus the art most distant from us becomes the nearest; the art most alien to us becomes the closest.19
Raphael is speaking of man’s attempt to liberate himself from the animal state; the
paintings echo the continuous, extra-temporal struggle of humankind to rise above a
present state of being, to aim for a future that today can only be imagined. He argues that
these works are products of a moment of transition and transformation, and thus they
themselves represent the concept of humankind as a dynamic, ever-moving body.
This significant cultural insight notwithstanding, Raphael’s tenets were based on
some faulty data. For example, he suggested that the representation of humans in parietal
art was forbidden.20 The evidence of human depictions on cave walls contradicts this
notion. He also insisted that some of the paintings were totemic,21 a hypothesis that had
largely been discredited already by his time. Nevertheless, Raphael recognized crucial
aspects of the paintings that archaeologists had previously missed, such as the fact that
often the animals were not groups of individual images, but were clustered instead into
17 Raphael, 1945, 2. 18 Raphael, 1945, 1-2. 19 Raphael, 1945, 2. 20 Raphael, 1945, 8; Raphael is speaking only of parietal art here; he acknowledges the human depictions in mobile art. 21 Raphael, 1945, 6.
12
compositions (“the herd and the horde”22). Additionally, he perceived that the animals’
dimensions often conformed to the ratio of the Golden Section,23 first articulated by
Leonardo da Vinci, which posits a specific ratio of proportions that is said to be most
aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, Raphael proposed that the Golden Section proportions
could be achieved with the use of the human hand, which, on average, has the
approximate measurements of 3:2 in length and width. The human hand, Raphael
contended, was a critical tool in the context of this particular historical moment:
The hand was the organ by which erectly walking man could translate the superiority of his consciousness over the animal’s thinking capacity into practice. The hand enabled him to make instruments and weapons independent of his person…The hand was the organ that enabled man’s spiritual and physical forces to strive outward, that in the struggle for existence secured his life against animals and his power over other men.24
Raphael’s hypothesis, perhaps more than any other before his time, took into
account the unique socio-environmental phase within which the Upper Paleolithic
parietal art was produced, and tried to make sense of it. Although much of his work was
highly speculative, his ideas opened new paths for later researchers to explore by
suggesting innovative modes of thinking about the art and the people who produced it.
The structuralist interpretation that followed largely emerged in the 1950s, and its
philosophic methodology might be considered a backlash against earlier emphases on
ethnographic parallels. Proposed primarily by two French scholars, Annette Laming-
Emperaire and André Leroi-Gourhan, the model rejected ethnographic analogies and
focused entirely on the content and context of the art itself. Their structuralist view held
that the artists had a predetermined and ideal schema or structure that was superimposed
on the caves. Additionally, Leroi-Gourhan postulated a binary system in which animals
and signs had either male or female values; however, these values were independent of
the depicted sex of the animal. This interpretive system was also applied to natural
features of the cave interiors: cracks in the wall, for example, he considered to be female.
Under the structuralist hypothesis the only thing that mattered was the subject of the work
and to some degree (at least for Leroi-Gourhan) the comparative locations of images
within a given cave. Everything else, including the number of animals, their sexing,
positioning, stylistic attributes, etc., was unimportant. One of the major criticisms of the
structuralist explanation challenged the plausibility that such differentiating features of
the representations did not matter. Why did their creators go to the trouble of explicitly
depicting them if they were meaningless? Also critiqued was the binary system of sexual
values applied to the images. The attribution of male and female significance to specific
renderings was entirely subjective, and there was no solid evidence for it. A final point
made by critics of the structuralist approach was that it failed to explain why the work
was created in the first place. Structuralism postulated an overall scheme for the
organization of the caves and the placing of the parietal art within that framework, but
failed to articulate why such a scheme would be significant.25
Despite its failure as a plausible theory in its specifics, the structuralist approach
moved the study of Upper Paleolithic art forward. Leroi-Gourhan approached the parietal
art in a highly objective manner; he believed the research should be rooted in the
evidence itself. Because of this desire for objectivity, he conducted thorough on-site
investigations and left extensive documentation of subject matter, locations, and image- 25 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 73-75.
14
frequency in cave art throughout the Franco-Cantabrian region that would be of great aid
to later scholars.26
The current prevailing interpretation of the parietal art is informed by our
understanding of shamanism, as this is manifest among hunter-gatherer societies of more
recent times.27 The lifeways of Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers are presumed to have
been the most ancient prototypes for shamanic beliefs. The shamanic hypothesis of cave
art is based on a fusion of direct evidence from the caves themselves with observations of
more recent hunter-gatherer societies that still produce rock art. Since the early 1970s,
various shamanic experts had suggested that prehistoric cave art may have had a
shamanistic purpose,28 but the idea was not explored in depth until the 1990s, primarily
by David Lewis-Williams.29
26 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 79. 27 Lewis-Williams, April 1988, 213. 28 Eliade, 1964, 503; Halifax, 1979, 3. 29 David Lewis-Williams linked the rock paintings made by the San of South Africa and the altered states of consciousness they engaged in as a part of their religious beliefs and traditions. His findings were not, however, based on direct viewing of San painting practices, but rather on ethnolinguistic information collected by the German linguist Wilhelm Bleek in the nineteenth century.
15
Part II: Shamanic Interpretations
Shamanism is a religious “technique of ecstasy.”30 Shamans enter altered states
of consciousness – trances – at will, in order to achieve some socially-mandated end,
such as healing the sick, changing the weather, predicting the future, or conversing with
spirits. Healing is a particularly widespread province of the shaman. The shamanic
scholar Joan Halifax describes the shaman as a “healed healer”: someone who has gone
through a deep illness and has healed himself, thus giving him the power to heal others.31
Lewis-Williams comments that shamans “must suffer before they can heal, ‘die’ before
they can bring life to their people.”32 The concept of symbolic death is a crucial element
in the understanding of shamanic visionary experience, which will be elaborated upon
later. Shamanism is ethnologically attested as ubiquitous among hunter-gatherer
societies. Moreover, the ability to enter altered states of consciousness has not only been
found in humans around the world, but also in some animals, suggesting that it is a
capacity rooted in the mammalian nervous system.33 The extension of this capacity to the
sweep of mammalian life may be open to debate. But it is a proven capacity of the human
nervous system, which presents to us, as Lewis-Williams puts it, a “neurological bridge”
to the Upper Paleolithic.34 Cultures, traditions, rituals, and religions can all change,
particularly over a time span as large as that between today and the Upper Paleolithic. It
is, however, irrefutable that Upper Paleolithic peoples were anatomically modern,
behaviorally modern, and culturally modern humans; biologically speaking, they were no
different from us. Thus, we can be sure that they had the same nervous systems as we,
have been highly elaborate; music, dancing, singing, and other forms of performance
might have formed another element of ritual in the caves. Flutes made from bird bones
and dating to about 35,000 years ago have recently been discovered in, among others, the
cave of the Hohle Fels in southwestern Germany [Fig. 7].58 Another source of sound that
could have been used in a ritual context is the stalactites that grow in nearly every cave.
When stalactites are struck they produce a huge booming sound that echoes throughout
the long passageways.59 There is neurological evidence that auditory sensations (namely
low-frequency, deep, steady, repetitive sounds, such as drum beats) can induce trance
states. Primary ethnographic evidence documents that the San of the Kalahari Desert,
who practiced shamanism until the early nineteenth century,60 used this method to enter
altered states of consciousness. Drums were used – and often still are in practicing
societies – to “sustain” the shaman on his journey to the spirit world.61
Shamans are mediating figures that can navigate between the tiers of the cosmos.
Inherent in the process of their extracorporeal journeys is a close association with spirit-
animals. Many shamans identify with a single animal that is the source of his or her
power, and that spirit brings a “supernatural potency” that enables the shaman to work his
magic.62 Entering trance is often accompanied by nosebleeds, prickling of the skin,
shivering or trembling of the limbs, and a painful “boiling” sensation in the stomach. This
latter sensation is said to be the physical manifestation of the supernatural power boiling
up inside of the shaman.63 Morphing into an animal is a commonly reported
58 Conard, August 2009. 59 Lewis-Williams, 2002, 224. 60 Solomon, 2005, 45. 61 Lewis-Williams, 2002, 225. 62 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 23. 63 Lewis-Williams, April 1988, 211.
23
hallucination, and such a connection with animals is essential to understanding Upper
Paleolithic cave art. Some of the paintings that appear to represent real animals may
instead be depictions of wholly transformed shamans. Moreover, the half-human, half-
animal figures, called therianthropes (for example, the reindeer therianthrope of Les Trois
Frères [Fig. 8]), may make manifest the shaman’s vision of himself in a liminal state of
half-transformation into an animal.64
It is crucial to note that all three stages of mental image-production documented
during altered consciousness are hard-wired into the human nervous system, but the
subject matter of the last two stages is entirely dependent on culture, not biology. In
trance-state, shamans tend to hallucinate exactly what they expect to hallucinate, so it is
not surprising that animal-transformation might figure prominently in hallucination-
driven cave art of this period. Shamans throughout time have performed rituals in which
they don fabricated headdresses and other costumes that may be said, on some level, to
“represent” their fusion with animal spirits. In this vein, Paleolithic images of
therianthropes are sometimes characterized as straightforward representations of shamans
wearing animal masks. But the duality of ritual costuming and deep-trance hallucination
is apparent: it indicates the depth of cultural motivation feeding both trance-state visions
and their materialization in Paleolithic caves.
Given the strong association of animals with shamanism, the paintings of human-
animal faces at Altamira [Fig. 9] are likely to be conceptually related to this duality: a
fusion of the realities both of shamanic animal mask and shamanic vision of oneself in a
morphed animal-human state. The faces, not obviously animal or human, are painted onto
pillar-type rock formations that jut out from the wall; the mouths effectively utilize 64 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 94.
24
fissures in the rock. The image, in this way, operates as both a painting that was
outwardly added and, simultaneously, as a deeply embedded part of the structure of the
cave itself.
Formal elements similar to these are an integral part of the cave art. Across the
Franco-Cantabrian region, the most common attribute of parietal art is the way in which
it exploits the natural features of the cave wall such as we have just noted with the faces
of Altamira.65 The often-illustrated bison on the ceiling at Altamira [Fig. 10] utilize
bosses on the living rock as the outlines for their heads and abdomens. Some animals are
even positioned vertically, as in the Castillo Cave [Fig. 11], in order to take advantage of
the natural rock formations. At Pech Merle, the raised line of the rock wall forms the
head and body of a horse, which is accompanied by entoptic phenomena [Fig. 12].
Almost every cave in the region reveals instances of the exploitation of rock contours in
the applied parietal imagery. But it is likely that we are seeing something here that is
motivated by urgencies beyond an artistic striving for formal and structural solutions
between the image and the rock surface upon which it is being imposed.
Some images that use the natural rock contours can only be seen if the light
source is at a specific angle relative to the art. Lewis-Williams argues that these works
indicate a complex relationship between the viewing person and the image. On the one
hand, the person has control over the image: by moving the light source around he or she
can make the image appear and disappear at will. On the other hand, the image has its
own kind of power over the person: anyone desiring to see the image is compelled to
65 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 86.
25
stand still with the light held in a precise position. If the light source is moved, the image
is lost.66
The context of the shamanic cosmos, which is nearly always tiered, sheds further
light on the function and significance of the caves. The simplest version of the shamanic
cosmos is one containing the sky above, often considered the home of the gods, the earth
in the middle, as the domain of humans, and the world of the spirits and the dead below.
Because caves extend so deep below ground, the experience of entering that darkness
would have felt akin to entering the spirit world.67 The does at Covalanas [Fig. 13] were
painted in a perspective that makes them appear to be emerging out of the depths of the
cave, or of a place of spirit-animals. In this way, they seem spiritually as well as
physically wedded to the subterranean tier.
Across the entire Upper Paleolithic there are no depictions of natural landscape
features such as ground lines, clouds, the sun, or trees. These representations were not
intended to depict integrated observations of the natural world. Rather, they belong to
another world, one in which the animals are free-floating – which is, in fact, exactly how
they appear in trance-based hallucinations. On the cave wall the free-floating animal is at
once unanchored by things of the normally observable world and also physically bonded
to the interior regions of the earth. The vast majority of the images are also unrelated to
each other: proximity rarely means anything at all. The importance of the exploitation of
the cave wall is that the animals become a part of it; it is no longer simply a surface on
which the painting rests. Instead image and wall are vitally linked.68 Artistic techniques
in many caves make it seem as if the animals are emerging out of the cracks of the wall
66 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 91. 67 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 29. 68 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 92.
26
itself or deep recesses, particularly the ones that are only half-painted. The frontal view of
a reindeer head at El Castillo [Fig. 14] is one of the most ingenious uses of the rock.
Here, a hole in the wall forms the head itself, and the antlers are drawn in above it.
The techniques and treatment of the images suggest a critical importance of the
living materiality of the cave wall. In some caves there are bone objects, including
spearheads, bone fragments, and teeth, several of which have traces of paint on them, that
are jammed into cracks in the rock surface or placed in small niches in the wall [Fig. 15].
These objects were surely not placed there idly or for no purpose at all. There are simply
too many of them, and, in addition, a large number are located in the remotest depths of
the caves. The bone objects, particularly the ones wedged into cracks and emerging out of
the rock floor, make it seem as if the human agent was attempting to pierce the inner core
as well as the surface membrane of the rock itself.69
Bones are a fundamental material in the context of shamanism. Historically, the
shamanic costume often includes long iron objects that give the appearance of a human
skeleton. The costume is a symbol of the unique status of the shaman as a personage who
has died and been resurrected. The bones symbolize and re-enact his initiation of death
and resurrection, and connect to his role in the community and his ability to mediate
between the worlds of the living and the dead. But bones, too, represent something even
more elemental: “Among hunting peoples bones represent the final source of life, both
human and animal, the source from which the species is reconstituted at will…the ‘soul’
is presumed to reside in the bones.”70 Mircea Eliade, a historian of religion, suggests that
69 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 83. 70 Eliade, 1964, 159.
27
the bone objects lodged into the rock might also be interpreted as ritual offerings.71
Regardless of their specific purpose, these acts of agency indicate the powerful
significance of the cave interiors. With this perspective in mind we can begin to
understand the spiritual importance of the caves and the rites and rituals that were
conducted within them.
Using ethnographic comparisons of other hunter-gatherer shamanic groups that
made rock art, Lewis-Williams argues that to the Upper Paleolithic peoples the cave was
the spirit world itself. By recreating visions on the walls, shamans could draw out the
spirits of the underworld. Within the scope of this framework, the rock surface was a
‘membrane’ or a ‘veil’ between the people and the underworld that existed just on the
other side of the wall.72 Places in certain caves such as the Apse at Lascaux have
drawings and marks piled up on top of each other [Fig. 16]; some are not drawings at all
but simply scored lines made in the soft rock surface. These might have been attempts by
‘lay’ people to access the power residing beyond the wall membrane,73 but the shaman
also could have produced them while in low-level trance states.74 The rock was more
than just a surface – it was a living material infused with magic, power, and meaning.
The significance of the cave itself would also provide an explanation for why some
animal depictions, like the vertical bear in Chauvet [Fig. 17], appear to be emerging from
cracks in the wall, or why bones were pushed into small openings, as if they were trying
to reach into the spirit world.75
71 Eliade, 1964, 503. 72 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 85. 73 Lewis-Williams, 2002, 256. 74 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 110. 75 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 85.
28
Viewing the caves in this context also sheds light on the handprints [Fig. 18] that
appear that appear across the spatiotemporal breadth of the Upper Paleolithic. The
handprints established a relationship between the person and the spirit world beyond the
rock surface. The pigment was most likely ritually prepared to make it powerful, as it is
in other shamanic societies that make rock art,76 and would have created a bond or seal
between the hand and the wall. Some prints are negative stencils, made by placing the
hand on the wall, and then blowing pigment on top of it through the mouth, a hollow
bone, or a reed. The coloring agent in these cases would have formed a seal between the
hand and the wall. The paint may have also been seen as a ‘solvent’ that dissolved the
rock, allowing brief tactile access to the world behind it.77
While we will never be able to give a precise meaning for all of the parietal
imagery, these interpretive frameworks provide an important entry point into the work,
allowing us to conceptualize making, meaning, and purpose in a way that extends beyond
mere formal analysis. Not all of the cave art may have been made for shamanic purposes,
and there might have been various forms of shamanism that existed side-by-side.
Different areas, from open-air sites to the deepest caves, were most likely used for
diverse ritual purposes in a context of dynamic and evolving social complexity.78 The
shamanic hypothesis is simply that – a hypothesis. While the interpretations it opens up
fit the evidence well, no hypothesis, science tells us, can actually be proven; one can only
continue to show that there is nothing to falsify it and plenty to support it.
The shamanic explanation answers many interpretive questions that previous
hypotheses could not. However, all of the interpretations introduced so far leap over a
76 Solomon, 2005, 51. 77 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 95. 78 Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998, 102.
29
more fundamental issue than the ones they are investigating. They raise questions
concerned with the meaning of the art, or the context in which it was created, but fail to
ask why the Upper Paleolithic peoples were compelled to make the art in the first place.
The shamanic interpretation, for example, says that during ecstatic trance they would see
images on the screen of their mind, projected onto surfaces in front of them, and would
then ‘fix’ the images on the wall, either during or after trance. But why did Paleolithic
shamans feel the need to fix mental images on the wall at all? There is nothing in known
shamanic tradition that universally necessitates art production. Ultimately, some other
force must have combined with shamanic practice to compel the production of Upper
Paleolithic parietal art. This other force, I propose, is closely tied to ritual.
30
Part III: Art and Ritual: A Biobehavioral Perspective
I will argue below that the making and perceiving of Upper Paleolithic parietal art
was intimately entwined with the making of ritual – that this art-making (and its resultant
apparition over time) was itself a dynamic feature of ritual behavior. In order to make this
case, I review and interpret the nature of ritual, as discourse on this complex subject, and
its particular relevance to the Upper Paleolithic environment.
There are numerous reasons why humans are driven to construct and to perform
ritual; but at the core of all such reasons is a biobehavioral feature of the human
condition. We have evolved to engage in ritual practices because they are selectively
advantageous – they have helped us survive. Historically, nearly all societies have
distinguished the ordinary from the extra-ordinary – the mundane and explicit from the
sacred and unseen. Rituals, being at once prescribed and symbolic actions, constitute a
formalization and exaggeration of ordinary behaviors, enhancing their significance and
meaning by extending them into dimensions of the unseen.79 As a generalized concept
across history, ritual acts are often elaborately set apart from the spaces and places of
everyday life, just as the Upper Paleolithic caves were physically differentiated arenas set
apart from habitation sites, and just as so much of the imagery applied to their walls was
set within their most remote depths. When, instead, rituals take place within the bounds
of mundane spaces and lifeways, they serve temporarily to take that ordinariness into a
special space in meaning and time for the extent of the episode. In both scenarios, rituals
are crystallizing expressions of the transformative valences of passage from the ordinary
to the extra-ordinary dimension of life. Paradoxically perhaps, an essential feature of
79 Dissanayake, 1992, 48-49.
31
ritual is its repeatability, indeed its essence as a perpetually re-performed act.
Ritual is an evolved and distinctly human capacity that became hard-wired into
our neural circuitry because such behavior was beneficial within the evolutionary
environment. This hard-wiring was an established element of the human condition
already in the Upper Paleolithic.80 Ritual comprises formalized, socially reinforcing
ceremonies that use signs, symbols, and other abstract “repetitive systems of visual
representations”81 to bring about a desired result. Particularly in hunter-gatherer societies,
ritual behavior tends to arise around major life events and crucial cyclical transitions like
birth, death, marriage, and coming of age. But it is also concerned with practices
pertaining to survival and crisis-intervention and is thus charged with anxiety – e.g.,
through urgencies to obtain food, cure the sick, resolve conflict, and guard against natural
disasters. This was especially true during the Pleistocene. Archaeological and
paleontological evidence documents the dangerous animals with which Upper Paleolithic
peoples had to contend, long periods of food shortage and starvation, and phases of
intense cold when the glacial sheets advanced from the north.82
The ethologist83 Ellen Dissanayake contends that although the specific
manifestations of rituals are by and large culturally-specific, they are based on an innate
behavioral tendency.84 In the face of anxiety, change, and times of uncertainty, humans
80 Simple differentiating between the ordinary and the non-ordinary is a capacity far older and more instinctive than its human cultural context would seem to imply. All animals make the distinction between ordinary versus non-ordinary – or normal versus abnormal. But only humans codify these distinctions in consciously ritualized form. Nonetheless, all animal survival is dependent on defense mechanisms that filter out irregular events such as noises, movements, and signs of aggressors: they are constantly ready to perceive change and react to it via predictable, repeatable tactics. Dissanayake, 1992, 50. 81 Conkey, 1985, 299. 82 White, 1986, 77. 83 Ethology is the study of animal behavior, specifically behavioral patterns in the context of the natural environment. 84 Dissanayake, 1992, 68.
32
are not content to rely on the responses that the rest of the animal kingdom does, but are
instead driven to act. The normal, instinctive responses of animals include flight, fight, or
freeze. Action as embodied by ritual is none of these. Rather it is deliberative and
purposeful: rituals are intended to change or impact a particular circumstance. During
periods of drought, animals, as far as we can tell, do nothing but wait for rain to come if
they cannot find another water source. Humans, conversely, invented the rain dance.85
When all tangible and practical possibilities to rectify or alleviate anxiety-inducing crises
have been exhausted, humans still act, in whatever manner possible.
Not only are rituals performed in the face of disasters, but they are also conducted
in preparation for them. Ritual and oral tradition, as Leah Minc argues, are used to
transmit information required to survive subsistence crises, particularly in pre-literate
societies. It is these types of mechanisms that enable the retention of survival-related
memory from one crisis to another, even if there is a temporal gap of several generations
between crises.86 When oral tradition is sanctified – that is, when it is codified within a
ritual context – the encoded knowledge and information is strictly sacrosanct, thus
ensuring near exact transmission with little room for deviation.87
The concept of ritual or cultural memory is not limited to one particular aspect of
culture or to one narrow human cognitive or physical capacity. Rather it exists
simultaneously as a shared body of knowledge bonded to the totality of identity and
behavior within a society. A ritual cannot simply and passively be passed on. It must
become “part of the ongoing process of interpretation and re-interpretation of the
world…[that] involves the sedimentation and inscription of habits into the body.”88 The
reading and transmission of ritual is a complicated practice subject to continual pressures
of change. As we shall see, it requires complex cognitive processes.
Denis Dutton, a scholar of aesthetics and the philosophy of art, postulates the
ways in which we can connect artistic behaviors to biobehavioral and evolutionary
frameworks through the use of language. Like art and ritual, language is dependent on a
certain degree of abstract, symbolic, and conceptual thinking. Additionally, language,
like art and ritual, is a behavior that negotiates between two spheres. As Dutton
articulates this interdependency of language, art, and ritual:
[It involves] on the one hand, deep, innate structures and mechanisms of intellectual and emotional life and, on the other hand, a vast ocean of historically contingent cultural material.89
Languages, while differentiating, can still be translated from one to another because
linguistic structures are transcultural and “tied to universal prelinguistic interests, desires,
needs, and capacities.”90 Moreover, there are other aspects of language that suggest a
biological basis, such as the ubiquitous involvement of emotional expression, and
children’s instinctive capacity to learn verbal communication without instruction.91
Dutton also examines the concept of ‘decoupled cognition’, a term that refers to
the ability to separate out imagined worlds from the real one – a capacity that would have
had survival value in the Upper Paleolithic. Two major and universal human behaviors,
storytelling and the ‘pretend play’ of children, exhibit the use of this cognitive dexterity,
which allows for the development of strategic and conditional thinking. Such abilities
states or situations that are betwixt and between, that are neither one thing nor another.100
Rites and rituals are ceremonial acts that mark these times and address them in ways that
are emotionally significant and transformative. They alleviate anxiety through action.
The reduction of anxiety is a critical survival tool, and both ritual and action are
usually calming behaviors. They are repetitive on multiple levels. The physical
movements that constitute action and ritual are typically rhythmic and cyclical. And in a
larger sense, rituals as a whole are codified over time and marked as tradition. They are
passed down and continually re-performed by subsequent generations. Certainly one of
the most striking things about the body of Upper Paleolithic art is the way in which many
aspects remained consistent over the 30,000-year period, implying a remarkably
continuous ritual tradition.
The continuity of ritual practices is, indeed, dependent on the social need for them
to be passed on. Early in the twentieth century, Harrison examined the similarities
between art and ritual by beginning with Plato’s definition of art, which holds that it is,
essentially, an imitation of the natural world. While this is by any modern standard a
limited and outdated characterization, it provides a vital conceptual framework within
which to understand ritual. Ritual, Harrison argued, involves a form of imitation. But it is
not imitation in the sense of rote copying or superficial reproduction. Rather, it embodies
reverence and urgency in ceremonial form. Ritual becomes the need or desire to recreate
an emotion. It is neither replica nor mimicry, but rather
an impulse shared by art with ritual, the desire, that is, to utter, to give out a strongly felt emotion or desire by representing, by making or doing or enriching the object or act desired. The common source…is the intense, world-wide desire that the life of
100 Dissanayake, 1992, 69-70.
37
Nature which seemed dead should live again.101
In this sense Harrison concluded that art and ritual are based on the same
fundamental premise, and, in addition, that they both require action. They are constituted
by the need to recreate, revive, and re-enact emotion through action. Art and ritual
emerge from a common and elemental emotional basis. The emotions being re-enacted
are not, however, private, individual ones. Rather, they are public and collective
emotions, experienced by an entire community.102 Beyond reflecting emotions, these
activities can also unite contradictory feelings and allow humans to create order within
their own worlds.103 A fundamental component of ritual behavior is an active and
emotional engagement with it.
A ritual only becomes dull or mundane when the emotion it was intended to
explicate, placate, or reinforce through enlivening has become moribund. At that point,
what remains is nothing more than procedural imitation. In other words, one must
actually believe in the ritual, in its purposes and intentions, in order for it to serve with
true effectiveness. This necessity is never more critical than in shamanism, which
requires a wholehearted belief and need to enter the frenzied and ecstatic states of altered
consciousness.
Ultimately, rituals are performed not merely in order to produce a singular
intended ‘result’, but also to have a larger, more complex social and biological function.
Anxiety and uncertainty are about a loss of control. The use of prescribed, codified, and
traditional sets of ceremonies (which often acknowledge anxiety, thereby lessening it)
status, rank, and respect within the society.115 Social hierarchy corresponds to
informational hierarchy. A cave like Lascaux is an excellent case in point, with its
combination of vast chambers and small, secretive places like the Shaft. John Pfeiffer
believes that
this use of spaces is a message in itself – a message we may yet read. It implies a system of classification, bodies of information separated by increasing difficulty of access, degrees of concealment, a hierarchy of knowledge.116
Social diversity and status differentiation can take numerous forms; societies devise
myriad different ways of marking and reinforcing hierarchy.
Art and ritual, Lewis-Williams argues, “were simultaneously born in a process of
social stratification.” The social divisiveness of art and ritual would have split the
community in numerous ways, but may also have allowed for increased social
complexity and adaptations to new environments.117 Lewis-Williams is one of several
scholars who are currently re-examining Max Raphael’s prescient claim that this was art
concerned not with contentment or maintenance of the status quo, but rather with conflict
and struggle.118 Margaret Conkey makes a similar point regarding art and ritual, noting
that “ritual communication is one of the means by which social elaboration, social
structure, and social reorganization takes on form and can take place.”119 A rise in social
complexity and hierarchy coincides with an increase in ritual communication and
activity.120
Strong archaeological evidence supports the argument that Upper Paleolithic
Division and unification most likely existed simultaneously; such a contradiction is one
of the implications of increased social complexity. Ritual has the ability to resolve
contradictory states,128 and therein lies the crux of the Hegelian129 nature of ritual
behavior. In the midst of a chaotic and complicated transition to societies with greater
complexity on every possible level, it is only an activity as dynamic and paradoxical as
ritual that could have allowed Upper Paleolithic communities to evolve – to move
forward without self-destructing.
128 Dissanayake, 1988, 65. 129 By this I am referring to the kernel of Hegelian philosophical thought: the thesis meeting the antithesis to form a new synthesis.
45
Part IV: Ritual, Religiosity, and the Sacred-Profane Dichotomy
Ritual, as we have seen, is critically linked to action. This connection is so deep
that the cognitive framework involved with the representation of ritual is the same as that
used for the representation of action. Psychologists concerned with the cognitive basis of
ritual have argued that all rituals are actions, and moreover, that the cognitive structures
associated with the making of ritual are virtually ubiquitous in humans.130
The connection between rituals and actions is not, however, as straightforward as
it might seem at first. There is a strange paradox inherent in ritual behavior: ritual is
constituted by mundane, repetitive actions combined with awe-inspiring, emotional,
novel ones, referred to as “sensory pageantry.”131 Rituals are easily remembered and
passed on because of both stability (strict conformity to traditional sets of rites that
compose them) and frequency. Both of these characteristics may, however, also lead to
them becoming routinized, monotonous, and boring.132 The aspects of ritual involving
sensory pageantry tend to be more exciting, and lead to heightened feelings and
engagement because they are “emotionally provocative,” increasing the likelihood that
the ritual will be remembered and passed on.133 Rituals often embody these two
seemingly opposite characteristics, both of which contain mechanisms to ensure retention
of knowledge and information.
How does ritual relate to the concept of religion in the Upper Paleolithic? Echoing
these contrasting attributes of ritual and their complex relationship are the two distinct
modes of religiosity that most religions fall into, as discussed by Harvey Whitehouse: a
130 Lawson and McCauley, 2002, 8-11. 131 Lawson and McCauley, 2002, 2. 132 Lawson and McCauley, 2002, 50. 133 Lawson and McCauley, 2002, 103.
46
doctrinal mode and an imagistic mode.134 The doctrinal mode of religiosity is the
tendency for elements and “revelations” of the religion to be “codified as a body of
doctrines, transmitted through routinized forms of worship,” producing “large,
anonymous communities.”135 The imagistic mode usually occurs within smaller-scale
societies; revelations are passed on “through sporadic collective action, evoking
multivocal iconic imagery, encoded in memory as distinct episodes, and producing highly
cohesive and particularistic social ties.”136 Imagistic experiences involve “extreme
sensual and emotional stimulation,”137 with an emphasis on activities like singing,
dancing, and feasting, as well as the presence of ecstatic states or painful and terrifying
experiences. Doctrinal and imagistic modes are not, however, strictly divided, nor are the
lines between them clear-cut. Sometimes these two contrasting modes can even be found
within a single religion.138 While the relationship between ‘religion’ and ‘ritual’ is often
fluid, religion is usually considered to be a social and cultural belief system that
incorporates ritual action. The kernel of religion is, however, that it involves a
“community of believers.”139 Doctrinal and imagistic modes of religiosity both highlight
this communal aspect of ritual experience.
The archaeological record suggests that the imagistic mode first came into being
during the Upper Paleolithic by means of experimentation with ritual behaviors that were
evidently highly advantageous in the demanding conditions of the era. Such behaviors
134 These concepts are discussed at length in Whitehouse, 2000, however I first encountered them in Johnson, 2005, where the issues are admirably synthesized. 135 Whitehouse, 2000, 1. 136 Whitehouse, 2000, 1. 137 Whitehouse, 2000, 112. 138 Whitehouse, 2000, 1. 139 Renfrew, 1994, 49.
47
formed more tightly-knit groups that facilitated hunting and community defense,140 an
argument consistent with Jochim’s contention that art and ritual increased during periods
of environmental and nutritional stress.
Related to Whitehouse’s hypothesis on the two divergent modes of religiosity are
the two major types of memory: semantic memory and episodic memory – both universal
features of human cognitive processes. Semantic memory is generalized knowledge that
is not anchored to a particular time, place, or experience. Episodic memory, by contrast,
is memory or knowledge directly tied to an episode or experience; it is highly specific
and individualized. Though imagistic and doctrinal modes both incorporate some degree
of both of these cognitive processes, the highly routinized doctrinal modes depend
heavily on semantic memory, while imagistic modes are more reliant on episodic
memory.141
Both doctrinal and imagistic modes (and in conjunction with these, semantic and
episodic memory, respectively) unite communities, albeit in different ways. Doctrinal
modes produce cohesion within large groups of anonymous people who, because of the
nature of semantic memory, have common thought and behavioral processes.142 In a
doctrinal religion like Catholicism, for instance, participants who have never met may
still congregate and have a common understanding of the performance and purpose of the
Eucharist. Conversely, imagistic modes intimately tie together participants in a single
ritual, a single episodic memory. Thus, this kind of memory is highly particular, but also
produces intense cohesion of the group.143 In small Upper Paleolithic communities,
endeavor; some people are either more prone, or have been designated by the community
to execute this action. Shamanic societies, of course, have shamans to enter those altered
states and perform some predetermined function for their society.
The notion of communal selection of specific individuals to carry out ritual
activities leads directly into Mithen’s final point: the assertion that the performance of
rituals can bring about desired change.154 Such a concept constitutes the very crux of
human ritual behavior: we believe we can impact our environment, our societies, and
ourselves through the use of ritual action. The reasons why humans perform ritual are
manifold and complicated, but they can be loosely divided into two categories: ‘ultimate’
causes and ‘proximate’ causes, to borrow terminology from evolutionary psychology.155
Ultimate causes are those pertaining to areas that individuals do not generally have any
control over. They are attributes or characteristics that evolved because they were
selectively advantageous: for example, group cohesion and solidarity, or the alleviation
of anxiety. But there are also ‘proximate’, culturally dependent reasons for making ritual:
peoples and societies believe that they work, that they retain significance or meaning in
some form.
Rituals are indeed often designated to be extra-ordinary, as discussed in Part III
above; they are a part of the sacred dimension of cultural life. Yet, the dichotomy
between ordinary and extra-ordinary, between sacred and profane,156 is not as distinct as it
might seem: these divisions often slide into ambiguity. Lawson and McCauley examine
the ways in which ritual actions can be deeply woven into the fabric of everyday life, for
154 Mithen, 1996, 176. 155 Dutton, 2009, 88. 156 The term ‘profane’ is not used in this thesis to mean ‘irreverent’, but rather ‘secular’ and ‘unholy’.
51
example, always making the sign of the cross when one enters and exits buildings.157
There is an absentminded quality to actions such as these, which – given their sacred
origins – reflects the paradox of ritual behavior embodied in the simultaneous use of
mundane, repetitive actions and emotional, awe-inspiring ones.
Mircea Eliade uses the term “hierophany” to refer to a manifestation or
“modality” of the sacred.158 He argues that within the sacred-profane dichotomy of
societies, hierophanies are clearly expressions of the sacred, but they also contain a
dialectical aspect: they are continually undermining that sacred component, pushing it,
reducing it to the profane.159 Frequently what occurs is “the sacred manifesting itself in
something profane.”160 There is an ambivalent attitude towards the sacred: man longs for
it, and the significance it represents, but he also fears being too far submerged in it –
being too removed from his everyday profane existence – for fear that he will lose his
own reality and identity.161 At the same time, Eliade maintains, religious ‘truths’ (that is,
theoretical religious elements such as symbols, ideograms, and myths) are inducted into
the realm of hierophany “not only because they reveal modalities of the sacred, but
because these ‘truths’ help man to protect himself against the meaningless, nothingness;
to escape, in fact, from the profane sphere.”162
It is this ambivalence, this contradictory notion of hierophanies – of ritual in
general – that speaks to an ultimate paradox: they embody elements of both the sacred
and the profane, a tension that sustains their coexistence.163 Furthermore, Suzanne Blier
serves to some extent as a means of both heightening the differences between the ‘ordinary’ and the ‘strange’ and helping to resolve inherent contradictions between the two. Related contradictions serve as an important impetus for artistic expression with artists seeking to create a sense of order (rationally, logically) out of conditions characterized more generally by features of confusion and contradiction…Rituals help to make the irrational seem not only viable and operable, but also understandable.164
Ritual is informed by structure, organization, and repetitive actions; but at the
same time, “disorientation, disjuncture, and distinction”165 are vital parts of ritual
performance. This fusion of rationality and irrationality, ordinary and strange, sacred and
profane, reality and unreality, underlines the Hegelian nature of ritual and its capacity not
only to alleviate anxiety, promote community cohesion, and address critical moments of
transition, but also to fundamentally reorder social relations through its ability to
reconcile that which is seemingly irreconcilable.
164 Blier, 2003, 304. 165 Blier, 2003, 304.
53
Concluding Thoughts
To recreate visions in sacred spaces after emerging from altered states is an
action, and it is that action itself that gathers importance. The creative process of parietal
art in the Upper Paleolithic was a way of manifesting vision, and thus of giving it
permanence; even after its execution, the work retained ritual significance. But behind the
essence of this action, we find that the need to act ritually in the Upper Paleolithic was a
behavior that we were born with, a behavior that evolved over millennia and became
hard-wired into our neurological structures because it helped the species survive. Art as
ritual in this context engaged with critical life issues and dealt with them in powerful
ways, strengthening communities, and addressing periods of transition and
transformation. It enabled the navigation of new and conflicting social arrangements,
difficult ecological stresses, and adaptation to change while still maintaining lines of
continuity.
In The Gift, Lewis Hyde speaks about the two kinds of life in ancient Greek
culture: bios and zoë. Bios is life that culminates in death, “limited life, characterized
life,” while zoë is “life that endures; it is the thread that runs through bios-life and is not
broken when the particular perishes.”166 Zoë-life is passed down from one generation to
the next, and thus secures its existence beyond the passing of each generation; it is the
gift that is “bestowed from the dead to the living and from the living to the unborn.”167
The ultimate importance of group cohesion is to ensure the survival of the community,
but inherent in the concept of ‘survival’ is not just physical procreation. Equally
important is the perpetuation of the zoë-life of the group: the knowledge, myths,
166 Hyde, 2007, 41. 167 Hyde, 2007, 253.
54
memories, experiences, values, and traditions that comprise the true ‘life’ of a society.
Zoë-life is cultural continuity: the ongoing flow of all the elements that compose a
society and hold it together. This concept is useful to us as we continue to find ways of
articulating creative and liminal experience in a remote past. To understand why humans
made art and ritual in the Upper Paleolithic requires grappling with processes of
informational codification underlying the urgencies of expressive cultural flow, and
appreciating why such codification was necessitated by the social and economic
conditions present in this prehistoric era.
Art and ritual in Upper Paleolithic Franco-Cantabria were social behaviors of
renewal and re-enactment, acts of marking importance; they recreated and resurrected
emotions, memories, and shared experiences that might otherwise have died. Ritual is a
process of endless resurrection, and it is thus altogether fitting that in the Upper
Paleolithic art and ritual were tied together with shamanism, “the world in which
everything seems possible, where the dead return to life and the living die only to live
again.”168 It is this collective process of ceaseless remembrance that lies behind art and
ritual, which operated as the insistent mechanism defining and re-defining society, and as
the means by which humans constituted and re-constituted memory.
168 Eliade, 1964, 511.
55
Appendix A: Images
Fig. 1. Chauvet, Panel of the Horses, 32,000 – 29,000 years ago. Source: Chauvet, et al., 1996.
56
Fig. 2. Rouffignac, mammoth (“The Patriarch”), 15,000 – 13,000 years ago. Source: Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998.
57
Fig. 3. El Castillo, entoptic phenomena, c. 13,000 years ago. Source: Clottes, 2008.
Fig. 4. La Clotilde, auroch, date unknown (Upper Paleolithic, 40,000 – 10,000 years ago). Source: Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998.
58
Fig. 5. Lascaux, “Shaft of the Dead Man,” 22,000 – 17,000 years ago. Source: Clottes, 2008.
Fig. 17. Chauvet, vertical bear, 32,000 – 29,000 years ago. Source: Chauvet, et al., 1996.
69
Fig. 18. Chauvet, handprint, 32,000 – 29,000 years ago. Source: Chauvet, et al., 1996.
70
Fig. 19. Le Tuc D’Audoubert, children’s heel prints, c. 15,000 years ago. Source: Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998.
Fig. 20. Le Tuc D’Audoubert, clay bison, c. 15,000 years ago. Source: Stokstad, Marilyn. Art History: Ancient Art, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009.
Fig. 22. Chauvet, the Lion Panel, 32,000 – 29,000 years ago. Source: Chauvet, et al., 1996.
72
Fig. 23. Lascaux, Hall of the Bulls, 22,000 – 17,000 years ago. Source: Clottes, 2008.
73
Appendix B: Major Franco-Cantabrian Upper Paleolithic Caves This compilation includes all Upper Paleolithic caves in Europe cited in this thesis (including one in Germany), as well as other major caves in the Franco-Cantabrian region. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive: there are about 100 Upper Paleolithic sites in the Franco-Cantabrian region alone, and many more scattered across Eurasia. The Upper Paleolithic is divided into four major periods: Aurignacian: 28,000 – 35,000 BP Gravettian: 22,000 – 28,000 BP Solutrean: 17,000 – 22,000 BP Magdalenian: 11,000 – 17,000 BP
Cave Name Approximate Period Location
Altamira
Magdalenian
Santillana del Mar, Cantabria, Spain
Chauvet Aurignacian
Vallon-Pont-d'Arc, Ardèche, France
Cosquer
Gravettian/Solutrean
Calanque de Morgiou, France
Cougnac
Gravettian Lot, France
Covalanas
Solutrean/Magdalenian
Santander, Spain
El Castillo
Magdalenian
Puente Viesgo, Cantabria, Spain
Enlènes (Volp Caves)
Early Magdalenian
Ariège, France
Gargas
Gravettian
Aventignan, Hautes-Pyrénées, France
Hohle Fels
Aurignacian
Swabian Jura, Germany
74
La Clotilde Unknown
Santa Isabel de Quijas, Cantabria, Spain
Laussel
Gravettian
Marquay, Dordogne, France
Lascaux
Solutrean/Early Magdalenian
Montignac, Dordogne, France
Les Trois Frères (Volp
Caves)
Early Magdalenian Ariège, France
Le Tuc D’Audoubert (Volp Caves)
Early Magdalenian
Ariège, France
Niaux
Magdalenian
Niaux, Ariège, France
Pech Merle
Gravettian Lot, France
Rouffignac
Magdalenian Dordogne, France
75
Bibliography
Aiken, Nancy. The Biological Origins of Art. West Port, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998. Bahn, Paul. “No Sex, Please, We’re Aurignacians.” Rock Art Research, Vol. 3, No. 2
(1986): 99-120. Bayles, David, and Orland, Ted. Art and Fear. Santa Cruz: The Image Continuum Press,
1993. Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University
Press, Inc., 1997. Blier, Suzanne Preston. “Ritual.” In R. Nelson and R. Schiff, eds. Critical Terms for Art
History, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Brück, Joanna. “Ritual and Rationality: Some problems of interpretation in European
archaeology.” In T. Insoll, ed. The Archaeology of Identities. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Chauvet, J.M., Deschamps, E., and Hillaire, C. Dawn of Art: The Chauvet Cave. New
York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1996. Clottes, Jean. Cave Art. New York: Phaidon Press, 2008. Clottes, Jean, and Lewis-Williams, David. The Shamans of Prehistory. New York: Harry
N. Abrams, Inc., 1998. Conard, Nicholas, et al. “New flutes document the earliest musical tradition in southwest
Thinking About Alternatives.” In L. Hager, ed. Women in Human Evolution. London: Routledge, 1997.
________. “Ritual Communication, Social Elaboration, and the Veritable Trajectories of
Paleolithic Material Culture.” In J. Brown, ed. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity. Orlando: Academic Press, 1985.
Curtis, Gregory. The Cave Painters: Probing the Mysteries of the World’s First Artists.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. Dissanayake, Ellen, Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began. Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 2000. ________. Homo Aestheticus. New York: Macmillan, Inc., 1992.
76
________. What Is Art For? Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988. Dutton, Denis, The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution, New
York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009. Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religions. New York: New American Library,
1974. ________. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. New York: Bollingen
Foundation, 1964. Flannery, Kent and Marcus, Joyce. “The Coevolution of Ritual and Society: New 14C
dates from ancient Mexico.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 101, No. 52 (December 2004): 18257-18261.
Gombrich, E. H. The Story of Art. Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1972. Hadingham, Evan. Secrets of the Ice Age: The World of Cave Artists. New York: Walker,
1979. Halifax, Joan. Shamanic Voices. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1979. Harrison, Jane. Ancient Art and Ritual. Great Britain: Moonraker Press, 1913. Hyde, Lewis. The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World. New York:
Vintage Books, 2007 (1979). Jochim, Michael. “Palaeolithic Cave Art in Ecological Perspective.” In G. Bailey, ed.
Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Johnson, Karen. “Modes of Religious Experience in Late Prehistory.” In M. C. Root, ed.
This Fertile Land: Signs and Symbols in the Early Arts of Iran and Iraq. Ann Arbor, MI: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 2005.
Lawson, E. Thomas, and McCauley, Robert. Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological
Foundations of Cultural Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Lewis-Williams, David. “A Dream of Eland: An Unexplored Component of San
Shamanism and Rock Art.” World Archeology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (October 1987): 165-177.
________. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art. London:
Thames & Hudson, 2002.
77
Lewis-Williams, David, et al. “The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper
Paleolithic Art.” Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 2 (April 1988): 201-245. Minc, Leah. “Scarcity and Survival: The Role of Oral Tradition in Mediating Subsistence
Crises.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 5 (1986): 39-113. Mithen, Steven. The Prehistory of the Mind. London: Thames & Hudson, 1996. Orland, Ted. The View From the Studio Door. Santa Cruz: The Image Continuum Press,
2006. Palacio-Pérez, Eduardo. “Cave Art and the Theory of Art: The Origins of the Religious
Interpretation of Palaeolithic Graphic Expression.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 29, No. 1 (February 2010): 1-14.
Pfeiffer, John. The Creative Explosion. New York: Harper & Row, 1982. Porr, Martin. “Palaeolithic Art as Cultural Memory: a Case Study of the Aurignacian Art
Raphael, Max. Prehistoric Cave Paintings. New York: Marchbanks Press, 1945. Ray, Benjamin. “The Koyukon Bear Party and the "Bare Facts" of Ritual,” Numen, Vol.
38 (December 1991): 151-176. Renfrew, Colin. “The Archaeology of Religion.” In C. Renfrew, and E. Zubrow, eds. The
Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Renfrew, Colin, and Zubrow, Ezra, eds. The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Rosenfeld, A. and Ucko, J. Palaeolithic Cave Art. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Smith, Jonathan. “The Bare Facts of Ritual,” History of Religions, Vol. 20, No. 1/2
(August 1980): 112-127. Solomon, Anne. “Rock Art in Southern Africa,” Scientific American (2005): 42-51. White, Randall. Dark Caves, Bright Visions: Life in Ice Age Europe. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1986. Whitehouse, Harvey. Arguments and Icons: Divergent Modes of Religiosity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
78
Wilburn, Andrew. “Shamans, Seals, and Magic.” In M. C. Root, ed. This Fertile Land:
Signs and Symbols in the Early Arts of Iran and Iraq. Ann Arbor, MI: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 2005.
Willemont, Jacques, Norbert Aujoulat, Mario Ruspoli, Alan Aber, Caisse National des
Monuments Historiques et des Sites, Institut National de L’Audiovisuel. Lascaux Revisited. 1 videodisc (35 min.) videorecording. Glenview, IL: Crystal Productions, 1989.